12 ms·

Everyone acts like military research is obviously evil. Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe?

xtian 8y ago
> Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? If that’s all that was going on, maybe not. But when armaments and enterprise become intertwined, the idea of safety becomes subservient to economic growth. We are well past the point that any reasonable person would consider “preserving safety” and have been for some time.
JetSpiegel 8y ago
> Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? Does this apply to Iranians doing the same thing for their country?
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Why not?
- gaius 8y ago
  Does this apply to Iranians doing the same thing for their country? Or Iranian vloggers on Youtube whose content is being fed into the machine?
jdietrich 8y ago
>Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? At best, it's a zero-sum trap. We need to research new weapons because they are researching new weapons because we are researching new weapons.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  We (in Ukraine) need to research new weapons because Russians kills us, and USA and Britain forgot(?) about their promises.
sametmax 8y ago
"evil" assume we attach a moral judgment to the people in the military. But personally I don't. I understand why they do it. I understand the cost. I know the pros and the cons. I don't have a hate for people in the military. I'm not even against weapons, after all I go to the shooting range. I just don't want to have anything to do with the activity of war and I'm lucky enough to have life currently giving me the freedom to do so.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Yes. But the excessive DoD budget is unconscionable. "We spend more on defense than the next ten countries combined." - POTUS Obama - State of The Union 2016 What makes matters even worse is we're still building (over-budget) fighter jets while our adversaries are focusing on cyber based "weapons." If we have more military but are less safe then something is not what it is said to be.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Oh but that's not a military problem per say as much as an American problem. Most countries in Europe have an army, and the bomb, but we don't do things that way. I think it's important to separate the 2 debates, one is quite universal, while the second one is a contextual issue to solve.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      Yes and no. The military's responsibility is to defend the country. If they're buying fighter jets when they should be buying laptops then they are failing to do their duty.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    It's because USA has much more wealth per habitat. Everyone gun is pointed at N1.
grumdan 8y ago
> Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? If this was the only thing the weapons were used for, then maybe people wouldn't be upset about this kind of stuff. The same arms will however also be used to extrajudicially assassinate people based on nothing else than their phone signal, in countries we are not at war with; they might be sold to regimes like Saudi Arabia that kills countless civilians in places like Yemen; they might be used to fight wars based on reasons the administration knows to be false; they might be used to gun down civilians by private contractors; the list goes on. I'd not be opposed to participating in military research if the weapons were actually used "responsibly" (I know that's a somewhat subjective terms, but most of my examples are quite clearly considered immoral by most people).
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Are you sure you want to be unarmed in front of enemy just because someone else may use your weapons unresponsively? Look at Ukraine then. Ukraine exchanged their nuclear arsenal for promises of safety by Russia, Britain, and USA. Is Ukraine safe place now?
  - Eupolemos 8y ago
    I think all he's saying is, that until he feels his own country resolves to use its arsenal in a somewhat responsible manner (he gave some pretty good examples to the contrary), he doesn't think you can make weapons for them in good conscience.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      Yep. But I'm asking about consequences. Ukraine was very poor after collapse of socialism, so USA had worries that Ukraine may sold or lost some of their nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, or supersonic bomber to an enemy of USA, so USA (with Russia and Britain) promised security to Ukraine in exchange of promise to demolish all that, and to stop development of any new weapons which can harm USA. So we dropped our weapons and stayed unarmed in front of Russia. I personally, counter-attacked Russians with pneumatic pistole, which I then exchanged on field to hand-made grenade, so other few, with real hunter riffles, had chance against AK's and BTR. Is my example bad for you?
jstewartmobile 8y ago
safe from all of those naked starving vietnamese peasants on the other side of the earth?
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  They are naked and starving because of Russian "help", not because of USA. Look at North Korea and on South Korea, if you still have doubts.
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    Parent comment was regarding "the people who risk their lives keep us safe". How do naked starving peasants on the other side of the earth pose a threat to the world's only superpower?
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      Even naked starving peasant can launch a nuclear missile or an other «humanitarian help» from Russia. They have nothing to lose.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
gaius 8y ago
Everyone acts like military research is obviously evil. I don't think the military is evil, or that military research is inherently wrong, or anything like that. I just think Google needs to be honest about it upfront. Let them change their terms and conditions to state "We are an American company serving American national interests and by using our services you consent to your data being used for this purpose". But they are being deeply disingenuous, and that is what is annoying people, not the military aspect per se.
a_imho 8y ago
Who is us and keeping safe from whom?
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Us are us. Whom are enemy.
JohnStrangeII 8y ago
This is ultimately a decision that everyone has to make on its own, and it's an ethically complex issue with many facets. My take on it is that if you contribute in any way to the development of a weapon that is used in morally unjustifiable ways, then you're complicit to murder and manslaughter, and you should be aware of that. For example, the US is conducting drone strikes in Afghanistan, which are essentially political assassinations. These are condemned by almost any independent expert on international human rights and come with a very high death toll of civilians, including many women and children. In fact, the number of non-combatant civilian victims is routinely higher than the number of targets. Moreover, they are routinely conducted over the territory of another, sovereign country without any international mandate, without any judicial oversight, and without any trial. If you participate in developing the drones or missiles that used in these strikes, or support them in any other way, then you are making yourself at least partially guilty of murder or manslaughter. From a moral perspective, it barely matters whether you believe or feel that the drone strikes keep your country safe. Extrajudicial killings of political opponents in foreign countries you are not at war with are illegal and immoral even if they have perceived or real positive side effects for your country. That's just an example to illustrate that it matters a lot for which government you develop weapons and what track record your country has in terms of human rights, military aggressions against other countries or lack thereof, and so on. There's probably less of a problem if you develop weapons for the Swedish army than if you develop weapons for Russia or the US. It also depends on the types of weapons, of course. Don't tell me it would be fine to develop chemical warfare agents, outlawed types of anti-person land mines, or autonomous killer robots, because they would 'keep your country safe'. Some technologies are just despicable. There's a reason why lasers that blind soldiers on the battlefield are outlawed.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  Anyone who pays taxes to the US federal government contributes to the development and maintenance of nuclear weapons. Most other weapons have insignificant effects by comparison. We should not underestimate their danger just because they have not recently been used. That's the conundrum Americans should all be thinking about.
  - 8y ago
fiblye 8y ago
And "us" refers to exclusively America, <5% of the world. The ones that are seen as dangerous are anyone and everyone in a non-allied country.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  "Home" means even smaller unit.
s0rce 8y ago
Terrible, maybe not. However, could we possibly be better spending some of the trillions of dollars of military budget on something like education or healthcare?
ryandrake 8y ago
It's important to note that many of these companies have a global workforce, and therefore plenty of employees who are not the "us" in the phrase "keep us safe". Imagine yourself happily working for a company not based in your home country, your research project may very well end up being used against your own country's defenses.
greggarious 8y ago
>Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? When in recent memory has the US military risked significant amounts of soldiers to "keep us safe"? If anything, the US military has made me unsafe. The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. Torture and drone warfare have created scores of "terrorists" - people angry that their civilian family members were killed in a war of aggression. You can trace a direct path in history from the invasion of Iraq to the rise of ISIS. Meanwhile, money that could have been spent of social services funded these wars - leading to an economic climate so bleak that voters elected a fascist president in hopes of changing their station in life. I'm no pacifist, but wars of aggression are not "keeping us safe" in any sense of the phrase.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Two problems with this argument. You're blaming the military for decisions made by civilian leadership. And, it's not wrong to do what we can to reduce risk both for soldiers and civilians. Adding more risk wouldn't be an improvement. Military spending is certainly tremendously wasteful, though.
  - ianleeclark 8y ago
    The military is the enforcement of the leadership, so it's valid to criticize them. Just taking orders wasn't an excuse at nuremberg and it shouldn't be today, either.
    - albntomat0 8y ago
      At what point should the military refuse the orders of civilian leadership? A tactical level order to shoot civilians (or similar, non-cliche situation) should be disobeyed. However, is it the military's responsible to disobey the decisions of a duly elected civilian government, such as the Iraq War resolution[0]? Civilian control of the military exists for a reason, and allowing/requiring the military to go against it would have wide ranging consequences. There are definitely unique cases to be explored, but credit/blame need to be assigned to the party responsible for the decision. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
draw_down 8y ago
Yes
DonHopkins 8y ago
You have a point there: Kim Jong-un's nuclear research program has kept North Korea very safe, and was obviously the best use of resources. And since the US only spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined, the US needs to boost military spending to implement Trump's pledge of rebuilding the military to its former glory by buying more horses and ironside frigates, instead of spending it on things like health care. /s

xtian 8y ago

> Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? If that’s all that was going on, maybe not. But when armaments and enterprise become intertwined, the idea of safety becomes subservient to economic growth. We are well past the point that any reasonable person would consider “preserving safety” and have been for some time.

JetSpiegel 8y ago

> Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? Does this apply to Iranians doing the same thing for their country?

v_lisivka 8y ago
Why not?
gaius 8y ago
Does this apply to Iranians doing the same thing for their country? Or Iranian vloggers on Youtube whose content is being fed into the machine?

jdietrich 8y ago

>Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? At best, it's a zero-sum trap. We need to research new weapons because they are researching new weapons because we are researching new weapons.

v_lisivka 8y ago
We (in Ukraine) need to research new weapons because Russians kills us, and USA and Britain forgot(?) about their promises.

sametmax 8y ago

"evil" assume we attach a moral judgment to the people in the military. But personally I don't. I understand why they do it. I understand the cost. I know the pros and the cons. I don't have a hate for people in the military. I'm not even against weapons, after all I go to the shooting range. I just don't want to have anything to do with the activity of war and I'm lucky enough to have life currently giving me the freedom to do so.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
Yes. But the excessive DoD budget is unconscionable. "We spend more on defense than the next ten countries combined." - POTUS Obama - State of The Union 2016 What makes matters even worse is we're still building (over-budget) fighter jets while our adversaries are focusing on cyber based "weapons." If we have more military but are less safe then something is not what it is said to be.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Oh but that's not a military problem per say as much as an American problem. Most countries in Europe have an army, and the bomb, but we don't do things that way. I think it's important to separate the 2 debates, one is quite universal, while the second one is a contextual issue to solve.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Yes and no. The military's responsibility is to defend the country. If they're buying fighter jets when they should be buying laptops then they are failing to do their duty.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  It's because USA has much more wealth per habitat. Everyone gun is pointed at N1.

grumdan 8y ago

> Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? If this was the only thing the weapons were used for, then maybe people wouldn't be upset about this kind of stuff. The same arms will however also be used to extrajudicially assassinate people based on nothing else than their phone signal, in countries we are not at war with; they might be sold to regimes like Saudi Arabia that kills countless civilians in places like Yemen; they might be used to fight wars based on reasons the administration knows to be false; they might be used to gun down civilians by private contractors; the list goes on. I'd not be opposed to participating in military research if the weapons were actually used "responsibly" (I know that's a somewhat subjective terms, but most of my examples are quite clearly considered immoral by most people).

v_lisivka 8y ago
Are you sure you want to be unarmed in front of enemy just because someone else may use your weapons unresponsively? Look at Ukraine then. Ukraine exchanged their nuclear arsenal for promises of safety by Russia, Britain, and USA. Is Ukraine safe place now?
- Eupolemos 8y ago
  I think all he's saying is, that until he feels his own country resolves to use its arsenal in a somewhat responsible manner (he gave some pretty good examples to the contrary), he doesn't think you can make weapons for them in good conscience.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    Yep. But I'm asking about consequences. Ukraine was very poor after collapse of socialism, so USA had worries that Ukraine may sold or lost some of their nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, or supersonic bomber to an enemy of USA, so USA (with Russia and Britain) promised security to Ukraine in exchange of promise to demolish all that, and to stop development of any new weapons which can harm USA. So we dropped our weapons and stayed unarmed in front of Russia. I personally, counter-attacked Russians with pneumatic pistole, which I then exchanged on field to hand-made grenade, so other few, with real hunter riffles, had chance against AK's and BTR. Is my example bad for you?

jstewartmobile 8y ago

safe from all of those naked starving vietnamese peasants on the other side of the earth?

v_lisivka 8y ago
They are naked and starving because of Russian "help", not because of USA. Look at North Korea and on South Korea, if you still have doubts.
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  Parent comment was regarding "the people who risk their lives keep us safe". How do naked starving peasants on the other side of the earth pose a threat to the world's only superpower?
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    Even naked starving peasant can launch a nuclear missile or an other «humanitarian help» from Russia. They have nothing to lose.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

gaius 8y ago

Everyone acts like military research is obviously evil. I don't think the military is evil, or that military research is inherently wrong, or anything like that. I just think Google needs to be honest about it upfront. Let them change their terms and conditions to state "We are an American company serving American national interests and by using our services you consent to your data being used for this purpose". But they are being deeply disingenuous, and that is what is annoying people, not the military aspect per se.

a_imho 8y ago

Who is us and keeping safe from whom?

v_lisivka 8y ago
Us are us. Whom are enemy.

JohnStrangeII 8y ago

This is ultimately a decision that everyone has to make on its own, and it's an ethically complex issue with many facets. My take on it is that if you contribute in any way to the development of a weapon that is used in morally unjustifiable ways, then you're complicit to murder and manslaughter, and you should be aware of that. For example, the US is conducting drone strikes in Afghanistan, which are essentially political assassinations. These are condemned by almost any independent expert on international human rights and come with a very high death toll of civilians, including many women and children. In fact, the number of non-combatant civilian victims is routinely higher than the number of targets. Moreover, they are routinely conducted over the territory of another, sovereign country without any international mandate, without any judicial oversight, and without any trial. If you participate in developing the drones or missiles that used in these strikes, or support them in any other way, then you are making yourself at least partially guilty of murder or manslaughter. From a moral perspective, it barely matters whether you believe or feel that the drone strikes keep your country safe. Extrajudicial killings of political opponents in foreign countries you are not at war with are illegal and immoral even if they have perceived or real positive side effects for your country. That's just an example to illustrate that it matters a lot for which government you develop weapons and what track record your country has in terms of human rights, military aggressions against other countries or lack thereof, and so on. There's probably less of a problem if you develop weapons for the Swedish army than if you develop weapons for Russia or the US. It also depends on the types of weapons, of course. Don't tell me it would be fine to develop chemical warfare agents, outlawed types of anti-person land mines, or autonomous killer robots, because they would 'keep your country safe'. Some technologies are just despicable. There's a reason why lasers that blind soldiers on the battlefield are outlawed.

hodgesrm 8y ago
Anyone who pays taxes to the US federal government contributes to the development and maintenance of nuclear weapons. Most other weapons have insignificant effects by comparison. We should not underestimate their danger just because they have not recently been used. That's the conundrum Americans should all be thinking about.
- 8y ago

fiblye 8y ago

And "us" refers to exclusively America, <5% of the world. The ones that are seen as dangerous are anyone and everyone in a non-allied country.

v_lisivka 8y ago
"Home" means even smaller unit.

s0rce 8y ago

Terrible, maybe not. However, could we possibly be better spending some of the trillions of dollars of military budget on something like education or healthcare?

ryandrake 8y ago

It's important to note that many of these companies have a global workforce, and therefore plenty of employees who are not the "us" in the phrase "keep us safe". Imagine yourself happily working for a company not based in your home country, your research project may very well end up being used against your own country's defenses.

greggarious 8y ago

>Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? When in recent memory has the US military risked significant amounts of soldiers to "keep us safe"? If anything, the US military has made me unsafe. The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. Torture and drone warfare have created scores of "terrorists" - people angry that their civilian family members were killed in a war of aggression. You can trace a direct path in history from the invasion of Iraq to the rise of ISIS. Meanwhile, money that could have been spent of social services funded these wars - leading to an economic climate so bleak that voters elected a fascist president in hopes of changing their station in life. I'm no pacifist, but wars of aggression are not "keeping us safe" in any sense of the phrase.

skybrian 8y ago
Two problems with this argument. You're blaming the military for decisions made by civilian leadership. And, it's not wrong to do what we can to reduce risk both for soldiers and civilians. Adding more risk wouldn't be an improvement. Military spending is certainly tremendously wasteful, though.
- ianleeclark 8y ago
  The military is the enforcement of the leadership, so it's valid to criticize them. Just taking orders wasn't an excuse at nuremberg and it shouldn't be today, either.
  - albntomat0 8y ago
    At what point should the military refuse the orders of civilian leadership? A tactical level order to shoot civilians (or similar, non-cliche situation) should be disobeyed. However, is it the military's responsible to disobey the decisions of a duly elected civilian government, such as the Iraq War resolution[0]? Civilian control of the military exists for a reason, and allowing/requiring the military to go against it would have wide ranging consequences. There are definitely unique cases to be explored, but credit/blame need to be assigned to the party responsible for the decision. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

draw_down 8y ago

Yes

DonHopkins 8y ago

You have a point there: Kim Jong-un's nuclear research program has kept North Korea very safe, and was obviously the best use of resources. And since the US only spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined, the US needs to boost military spending to implement Trump's pledge of rebuilding the military to its former glory by buying more horses and ironside frigates, instead of spending it on things like health care. /s